? I mean that at those frequencies, there is little advantage to be gained by looking at a schedule. The *most* time you can save is 5 mins
They do so when walking is doing the heavy lifting: when you can walk to most places you want, everything else falls into place.
-
-
As for most of the country, I'm not interested in changing it--I just want New England to get better.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
and that works when "point-to-point" only covers a tiny fraction of your urban area and a tiny fraction of the urban area you're visiting.
-
It works when you don't feel compelled to have millions of people in one place before building in an urban style (pic related)pic.twitter.com/AENlmsKdmp
-
Again, no it doesn't, because it doesn't allow you meaningful *off-network* access.
-
It obviates the problem bc everywhere is on the network. What your saying is like saying cars won't work bc u can't go off the road network
-
First, I can take my car off the road network. Second, there is no possibility of a train network connecting all the places served by roads.
-
Lol, you can take your car off the road network provided there's level enough ground and wide clearance between trees etc...
-
...as to the second point: so what? They clearly work fine without connecting everywhere that roads go. "Off network" travel still possible!
-
Not on a train. Only by car, which is of course the entire point of the discussion.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.